Edit:
Or will TONY be the leeding light and save the Britons from summary execution?

Edit 2

The&#39;re lawyer is chosen by BUSH?
It&#39;s a MILITARY court.
A cop out of the geneva contract.
Bush has no right to judge british citizens. and if he does then he will have commited a war crime or not.

Given that the only US taleban "illegal combatant" (John Walker Lindh) was given a &#39;normal&#39; public civilian trial and allowed access to an independent legal team, can anyone enlighten me as to why the situation is different with regards to the rest of the alleged "illegal combatants"?

The formatting looks terrible in quotes, heres the original for an easier read.

Originally posted by bbc
Two Britons are among six al-Qaeda suspects due to face a military tribunal in the US, the BBC has learned.

The two are Moazzam Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London.

They have been held for many months by the US, along with 680 other detainees, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without being sent for trial.

But US President George W Bush has now ruled they and four other unnamed Guantanamo inmates can be tried by military tribunal.

The tribunals have come under heavy criticism from human rights organisations. If they go ahead, they would probably be held in secret and could order the death penalty.

Mr Begg&#39;s father Azmat said he feared his son, a father-of-four, would not get a fair hearing.

"The trial will be military, the judge will be military and yet my son is a civilian. This is just not right," he said.

"If the government or military are appointing people in the court, that is absolutely wrong. It should be an independent person."&nbsp;

Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons said that the government was concerned about the use of a military commission to try the men, as well as about the way the commission would operate.

The Government will press America hard to satisfy concerns over access to lawyers, standards of evidence and appeals in the case of a guilty verdict, she said.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4&#39;s The World At One, she said: "It is far preferable, if they are British citizens, for them to come to the UK to face justice here."

But she said that the US decision appeared to have made this impossible.

Mr Begg repeated his claims that his son was innocent and the victim of mistaken identity.&nbsp; "My son was never involved in al-Qaeda. He is a proper, family man."

Fair trial concerns

Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, also raised concerns about the hearings, which he said were being "fixed" to secure convictions.

"The US Department of Defence will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defence and make up the rules of the trial.

"It appears to have only one objective - to secure a conviction.&nbsp;

"If they were prepared to take these people to American soil and try them under normal US prosecution, the evidence wouldn&#39;t stand up," he said.

Amnesty International too expressed alarm at the "second-class form of justice" which "falls short of international standards".

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said some aspects of such a tribunal would be "extremely worrying".

"It will almost certainly be held in secret, probably at Guantanamo Bay, and the really worrying thing is that there are reports... that an execution chamber is being built alongside it."

However, any execution order would have to be upheld by Mr Bush, he said, and the UK - which is against the death penalty - would protest strongly.

Draft charges

Mr Begg was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002, before being flown to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Abbasi was said to have been captured in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in late 2001.

Pentagon officials say all six suspects are believed to be either members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network or have other terrorist involvement such as training or fund-raising.

The next step is for the US authorities to draft charges against any or all of the six, and then make a decision on whether they will actually be tried.

There are seven other Britons in Guantanamo Bay, according to a recent Foreign Office statement. They are:

Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands

Asif Iqbal, 20, also of Tipton

Ruhal Ahmed, 20, also of Tipton

Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London

Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester

Richard Belmar, 23, from London

Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London.

Before the inevitable accusations of defending terrorists fly thick and fast, I would like to remind everyone about that old &#39;catchphrase&#39; "innocent till proven guilty".

I am personally appalled at this treatment. As a practical alternative I would like to see these men given the same rights and opportunities to defend themselves as given to John Walker Lindh. No more no less.

If they had broken a US law, in the US then I would say that they have every right to Judge them, and deal with them as they would anyone else that had broken that law. Irrespective of nationality.

I would expect a British Citizen found guilty of Murder in Texas, to face the Electric Chair...just like any other person guilty of murder in that State.

These people didnt break any US laws however.

Even if they did, they were on the other side of the planet, not withing the US jurisdiction.

The crimes they committed range from none (accused of being Taliban by someone with a grudge) to defending Afganistan from attack....remember the Taliban did not attack the USA/UK, they were the ones attacked, so they defended themselves...they just would not hand Al Queda over to the US. (although REMEMBER they DID offer to hand them over to a neutral nation for trial)

Then you have the 3rd lot...members of Al Queda.

Despite how much i despise these people and would wish to see them go down, even here there are problems.

They were located within another sovereign country, and so the US had no Jurisdiction (unless they are now telling us its OK to go into the US and forcably remove people wanted in other countries, without due process...eg Kissinger? )...being a member of Al Queda was not an offence in Afganistan.

Who says they are Al Queda? The local Warlord, getting rid of a rival, or have they got some real evidence?

If they have real evidence...then why not a real court? Oh yeh, a real court would throw the case out, as due process has not been followed and the evidence was illegaly obtained....and there is no way that they will ever get a fair trial in the USA. (No blame here, 9/11 was a horrific act)

The USA has created a rod for its own back (again)

If they are Tried in a military court, then why wasnt the Geneva Convention followed? There are strict guidlines as to the treatment of prisoners, many of which have been totally ignored.

If they are tried in a civil court then it complicates things...as there are so many countries involved, which do you look at as the standard for treatment of prisoners? The USA has an argument here that they are not in the USA, so US standards dont apply, but those of the country they are being held in.

However, they may not get convictions in a civil court....for many of the reasons given above.

It doesnt matter WHAT the USA does now....they are going to be attacked from every quarter on these prisoners.

I would suggest that they ratify the ICC and hand the problem over to them..however they are then in the boat of US citizens being brought before it, so this is just not going to happen.

Originally posted by garydavidlewis@6 July 2003 - 00:11 my theory is if there are traiters and they get caught they shud be jialed for life at a prison set up for terroists

Define "Traitor" and "Terrorist"

An example:

Hewitt slept with Diana then talked.

At the time she was a member of the Royal Family, and that act alone strictly speaking was "Treason". He also committed adultary with the wife of the Prince of Wales..again, strictly speaking "Treason" under the law.

Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

So you would have him locked up as a terrorist?

If you mean the people in the US Camp (I assume you are)...again define Traitor.

95% were Afgans, fighting the US/UK forces which attacked them. Most were also conscripts in this army. Some werent anything to do with it, but were accused by others (like senile old sod).

How are any of these people "Traitors"?

If you are from the US, the ONLY prisoner that can be called a traitor (ie the only US citizen) has already been tried...under due process (ie a civilian court).

Rat Faced
If America had real evidence then it would try these people fairly
And the fact that they are not tells me they haven&#39;t got enough evidence.
Also the hipocricy of America complaining for decades whenever its poeple were tried in this manner abroad.

and how can america say that as it is in cuba then american laws dont apply
if they dont apply in cuba how come they apply in iraq or afghanistan.